Canadian Lawyer invites senior lawyers, managing partners and in-house counsel to weigh in on Canada's leading boutiques in a variety of areas of law. Readers are asked to rank their top 10 boutiques from a list selected by our editorial staff.

From legal tech products and business valuation services to recruiters and legal research – the Canadian Lawyer Readers’ Choice Awards showcases the companies and products that prevailed among their competitors.

Twice a year, Canadian Lawyer invites senior lawyers, managing partners and in-house counsel to weigh in on the top 10 full-service, regional law firms based in different provinces across Canada each time.

Canadian Lawyer’s Top 25 Most Influential in the justice system and legal profession is the magazine's most-read feature. The annual survey asks readers to nominate and then cast their votes for the professions's best and brightest.

Jobsinlaw.ca is Canada’s go-to legal career site. By matching employers and recruiters with legal professionals, www.jobsinlaw.ca provides a cost-effective recruitment solution. Law firms, in-house legal departments and public sector organizations across Canada can find lawyers, legal professionals or legal support staff at all levels of qualification with jobsinlaw.ca.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

Whether your matter is to do with criminal, family, employment, property, or immigration law, FindLaw.ca’s Lawyer Directory will help you connect with the right lawyers to help you with your legal issues.

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

Innovatio Awards celebrate in-house counsel, both individuals and teams, who have found ways to show leadership by becoming more efficient, innovative and creative in meeting the needs of their organizations within the Canadian legal markets

Presented by Lexpert, the prestigious Rising Stars Awards Gala honours winners from across Canada and welcomes law firm and in-house leaders and distinguished guests to celebrate and network with others who are at the top of the legal profession

Innovatio Awards celebrate in-house counsel, both individuals and teams, who have found ways to show leadership by becoming more efficient, innovative and creative in meeting the needs of their organizations within the Canadian legal markets

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory comprises the results of an extensive peer survey. This comprehensive guide to legal talent in Canada identifies both leading lawyers and law firms from across the country.

The Lexpert CCCA Corporate Counsel Directory & Yearbook is a joint endeavour of the Canadian Corporate Counsel Association and Lexpert. It provides the most extensive listing of corporate counsel in Canada.

New rule of civil procedure tool to deal with vexatious litigants

An Ontario Superior Court judge has drawn upon a new rule of civil procedure to dismiss a motion by a litigant who had “already had his day in court.”

The judge did a good job of identifying indicia that show it’s a frivolous or vexatious proceeding that should be dismissed, says Kevin Toyne.

In Gao v. Ontario WSIB, Justice Fred Myers directed the registrar to send a notice under Rule 2.1, part of the Superior Court of Justice Rules of Civil Procedure, to Tieguang Gao indicating his motion was dismissed.

In the action, the plaintiff sued the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board and the Ombudsman. The plaintiff claimed relief as a result of alleged unlawful acts by the WSIB that led to the limiting of the plaintiff’s benefits under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. The plaintiff also alleged unlawful acts by the Ombudsman with whom the plaintiff filed a complaint concerning the conduct of the Ontario WSIB.

Another judge had already dismissed the action in August. In his decision, Myers stated: “The motion is supported by three volumes of motion record and a factum, none of which is written so as to be readily understandable.

“Mr. Gao has had his day in court and must now move on.”

In the decision, Myers addressed the specific issue of frivolous and vexatious proceedings stating: “The amount of wasted judicial time and administrative resources dealing with utterly frivolous matters is substantial,” adding that wasted court time and resources is “an issue impacting access to civil justice.”

Rule 2.1 was introduced July 1 to bring resolutions to “a particular category of disputes in a proportionate, timely and affordable way.” It provides a summary process for a hearing in writing to determine if an individual proceeding or a motion ought to be dismissed where it appears to be “frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. ”

“This prevents the hearing of the motion from itself becoming a vehicle for a party who might be inclined to inflict the harms of frivolous proceedings on the opposing parties and the civil justice system,” said Myers.

The judge only considered written submissions, which is the big difference from other proceedings that can be time consuming for the court and parties involved.

“It certainly strikes me as the kind of motion that this rule is designed to put a very quick end to,” says Kevin Toyne, a partner with Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP.

“The proceeding had already been dismissed but the person was trying to have someone noted in default. Justice Myers does a good job of identifying the different indicia that shows it’s a frivolous or vexatious proceeding that should be dismissed with this new summary procedure.”

Toyne says there are two ways for this to be applied. In Gao, it was the court drawing attention to it but there is also a provision for litigants to write in and ask for the process to be triggered. Both sides have an opportunity to make submissions and then it’s up to the court to decide whether the proceeding will be tossed out or allowed to proceed.

“Before this rule came in if you were served with a statement of claim at 100 pages long full of nonsense it was difficult to make it go away quickly and efficiently and in a cost-effective manner.

“Now all I have to do is write a letter to the registrar asking the registrar to trigger this summary procedure and there’s a lot less time used up, far fewer judicial resources, and less cost to the affected litigants,” he adds.

The flipside, however, is that it could also be open to abuse. Instead of the preliminary play by a defendant to strike, now they can write a letter to the registrar asking for the matter to be dismissed.

“In a case like the one before Justice Myers it seems it was pretty clear the motion should be dismissed, but what you may start to see as people become more familiar with the rule is . . . more people writing to the registrar asking for motions or lawsuits to be dismissed,” says Toyne.

The judge’s decision was “quite careful” in observing the track record of the plaintiff says Patricia Virc, of Steinberg Title Hope & Israel LLP.

“It looks to me like Justice Myers was looking at a pleading and saying ‘I can’t make heads or tails of this.’ That is a situation where it should be stopped in its tracks,” says Virc. “He does point out there are situations where you just have an unrepresented person but there is a thread or a notion of an underlying complaint that may be legitimate but the person just doesn’t know how to put it forward.

“Normally the relief a court would give if they just see a litigant having trouble putting something together would be to give leave to amend,” says Virc. “But when a pleading is just incomprehensible then there is no point in allowing an amendment.”

Virc admits there may be cases where a litigant is just having a difficult time getting their point across, but that wasn’t the case in this instance.

“There are situations where something legitimate is just buried in a mountain of nonsense and those are the difficult cases,” she says. “In this case what the judge is trying to avoid is putting a litigant who has already been put through numerous vexatious proceedings to the trouble of bringing their own motion again and give further platform for the litigant to do damage to someone who has already been unjustly victimized.”

Abuse of System

\barbara miller2015-10-23 01:56

0

I need some help with a vexatious proceeding in a small claims matter. Itel the truth I loose. I have to pay.. But she does not stop there..... I have been falsely brought in 2 more times. What can I say to the judge to get her to stop? Next I think she will go for my blood and will not stop until I am hurt. I don't take it personal she is just not well. Can you or anyone help me talk to the judge so he will hear me?

LATEST FROM JENNIFER BROWN

It’s not often you see a mini trade show of technology vendors set up inside one of Canada’s largest national law firms, but in an effort to show clients how it is working to innovate with the emerging legal ecosystem, Blake Cassels and Graydon LLP opened its doors to host a tech demo day last week in Toronto.

RELATED ARTICLES

A recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision focuses on a battle between a vocational college and the provincial government of Ontario, after the college alleged they were victims of an “excessively protracted regulatory compliance process imposed on them by the province,” and launched an action to claim damages.

​
A judge with the Superior Court of Justice has excoriated the provincial government over the state of conditions at the Brampton Courthouse, west of Toronto.
Justice Peter Daley, a regional senior judge with the central west region, says there are a host of problems that have resulted due to a lack of hearing rooms and office space at the courthouse, even after a memorandum of understanding was signed in 2008 with the government of the day.